ajudge in minneapolis has sentenced the former police officer derek chauvin, to 22 and a half years in prison for the murder of george floyd. the 46—year—old african american died last year, after chauvin knelt on his neck for more than nine minutes during an arrest. officials in florida say the apartment block that collapsed near miami on thursday leaving more than 150 people missing was due to undergo extensive repairs this year. four people are confirmed dead and a major operation is continuing to search for survivors and more bodies. borisjohnson has accepted an apology from his health secretary, after pictures emerged of him kissing and embracing a colleague, in breach of covid guidance. matt hancock says he's "let people down" and is "very sorry" after the images showed him with gina coladangelo.

now on bbc news, the media show. hello. from countdown to big brother to it's a sin, channel 4 has long been a fixture on our gogglebox. but could the channel a whole generation has grown up with be about to change? this week, the government announced another consultation into whether channel 4 should be privatised. so would that mean an influx of cash to compete with the streaming giants or a change of focus — perhaps less unreported world, more naked attraction. and would flogging our third—biggest broadcaster bring in as much cash as the government expects? joining me to discuss this is alex mahon, chief executive of channel 4, and chris curtis, editor in chief at broadcast. also with me, danielle lux, managing director of cpl productions. and, danielle, you've got a very broad slate, haven't you? give me a sense of the shows you've got on air at the moment.

well, we just finished life & rhymes, which is our entertainment show on sky arts. we are in production on married at first sight, in production on you are what you eat, league of their own, there's something about movies — quite a lot of stuff across a lot of genres. good. and, by the way, life & rhymes — that's like a beat poetry show which you described as entertainment, which is interesting in itself, and more on that later. derek mclean is also with us as well, managing director of bandicoot tv. now, you, derek, are the company behind the masked singer, and more recently the masked dancer. for anyone who hasn't seen the masked singer — and i must say, once it's been seen, it cannot be unseen — what is the elevator pitch? the elevator pitch for that show is literally your favourite celebrities in disguise, singing songs, and the audience and a celebrity panel of celebrity detectives trying to work out who's behind the mask. and lots of squirrel costumes as well.

don't forget the squirrel costumes. one squirrel costume. lots of blobs, lots of children's favourites, i think. mayjust be one costume — it's haunted me forever since i've seen it. anyway, more of that later. let's now talk about the big news from today on channel 4. and, alex, it is now clear you are going to be spending the next few months talking about the future of channel 4 and briefing ministers, so how did you feel when that news was announced, when you realised that is now going to be the reality of your life? well, we like being in the news and we like thinking about how we can change, so that's not always a bad thing. but i guess the sort of questions are about, what would that mean? and what would it mean to britain? what would it mean to the british public, who own us? the uk's creative economy? you know, you have on today a lot of the people that we work with and a lot of the companies that we pour the advertising money that we get into. and, you know, we're

all about making small businesses successful across the uk, so i think, aside from my excitement about us being on the front pages, my focus is on thinking about, "what are the questions we need to ask to make sure any changes are made in a really considered fashion and are definitely logical and makes sense, in respect of that data and effects?" and makes sense, in respect of that data and the facts?" ok, well, let's talk about how you work now, then, before we have an intricate conversation about how channel 4 might look in the future. how does it work now? because i think a lot of people think you cost the taxpayer money, but actually you don't. you don't get money from the government or from the licence fee. it's a very british thing, right? it's quite unique, it's quite peculiar, and that's particularly british, right? we were set up in 1982, actually set up by the thatcher government. we're going to hit 39 this year. so we're soon to be a0. we're constantly reinventing ourselves, but the way we work is we don't cost the taxpayer anything at all. we take money commercially from advertisers, we don't make a profit.

we take all that money — about £1 billion of revenue a year — and we recycle it into small and medium businesses across the uk. we spend our money — about 50% of it outside of london and about 50% in london. and that's a big focus for us, making sure we spread it across the uk on lots of creative production companies. they make programmes for us that we put on air. and i think that's really important, right? we're owned by the public, we're for the public, the decisions we try to make are about the public. and, technically, of course, the government, the parliament of the day, represent the public, so they get to make decisions about us. i mean, you say you look forward to discussing change. you do sound a bit, just in your tone, like you're kind ofjustifying the status quo there, with the way you've just rolled out of what channel 4 does. you don't see any need to change, do you? look, i think we can always do better. like, i really do see

the need to change. and we've changed a lot over the past years. you know, three years ago, this whole organisation was in london. and now, only a couple of years after making decisions, we've got big offices in leeds, in manchester, in glasgow, in bristol. we're spending 50% of our money outside of london and we've got almost 300 people employed outside of london, so we are changing all the time. we've changed because, now, a lot of our viewing is on digital. you know, all 4, which is our streaming service, is absolutely our focus. 80% of young people in the uk are registered on it. so we are changing. i always believe you should change, and that's partly what we were set up for. ijust think, when you think about changing the ownership, you need to think about what would be lost to the media landscape, what would be lost that's distinctive or valuable. and if you made those changes, would the uk public have things they would gain from privatisation, but would they have things that might make the media landscape worsened, in terms of plurality

or creative innovation? and we've got to look at the pros and cons of that. well, and also how it would work. so let's run through what the options for the future might be. do you think it could be listed on the stock market, so we can buy shares in it, like british gas when that was privatised? or are we talking about the government putting it up for auction and selling it to the highest bidder? i mean, have you got any idea what their preference might be? i don't think we're at that stage, but what i would say is... and i've run commercial private businesses and i've run that for private equity and i've run it for listed businesses. what i would say is when you run a business for profit and for return to shareholders, you tend to have a different set of priorities. that's not to say those priorities are wrong, it's just that our priorities are about public purpose. and we put public purpose above profit... just because you tend to, that doesn't mean, does it, that the remit of channel 4 couldn't be ring—fenced? it doesn't mean that the culture secretary is wrong when he says that this could be a big

cash injection, privatisation. it could be that some deep—pocketed mogul comes along and benefits channel 4 with millions of pounds more money than you get at the moment. i haven't seen any deep—pocketed media moguls come along and benefit public services in the uk. that's not to say that they don't exist, and it's also true to say that we already spend much more on programming as a percentage of revenues than any other commercial competitor. channel 5 is doing quite well with viacom as its owner, isn't it? we spend much more than channel 5 on programming. but it's a public service broadcaster, isn't it, that's owned by a big conglomerate? yes, yes, absolutely. but i think there's a question of when you are focused on profit and when you are focused on public service, do you do things slightly differently? you know, channel 5 has done a greatjob of appealing to older people, it fulfils the public remit that it's meant to fulfil, and it's very, very different to what we do.

you know, we're focused on the paralympics, on shows like it's a sin, we're focused on things like the write offs about adult illiteracy, the school that tried to end racism. we've got really, really in—depth, investigative and interrogative news on every night. that's very different to what you might see on channel 5, owned by viacom. although your big hits in recent years have been things like bake—off and taskmaster, which were poached from other networks. i mean, how distinctive is that? really, to take something that was somewhere else and put it in your schedule arguably deprives new invade of ideas and new talent, which is the thing channel 4 should be supporting, of that slot? i think there's plenty of new, innovative ideas on channel 4. you know, look at things like lady parts, about an all—female muslim punk rock band, that's on at the moment. there's a huge range of them. joe lycett, hollyoaks that's on every day. there's a huge range. and we're really focused on those new, innovative shows, and i know that producers will go on to tell you on this show that we are one

of the very few places you can get away new ideas and get away things that are known in the trade as "paper formats" — shows that have never been on anywhere else. that's really, really hard to do in our business. and it also means producers can export them around the world, and we play a very, very important role in doing that. the other thing that i understood was hard at the moment was getting advertising revenue, so can you explain why you had such a strong year last year? your financial results came out — a record £70 million surplus, yeah. so, look, a few things happened last year. obviously, you may know there was a pandemic last year, and we thought it would be dreadfulfor a while. but in the end, it was ok. we ended up only about 5% down. and that was partly because we did really well competitively. so, you know, when the pandemic came, we had to cut lots of programming and lots of things couldn't be made, and we had to cut some costs, but we did a thing that no one else did. we decided to put money back into making really reactive programming, things that really

reflected how we felt as a nation at that time. and we made some shows like jamie oliver cooking from home — that's how we all felt, right? we were all stuck at home, having to cook every night, endlessly. we had grayson perry doing art from home and kirstie allsop crafting from home. and we had, you know, all these fast turnaround shows on that really reflected how we felt as a nation. and we were all trapped at home with nothing to do, watching television, and that helped us competitively... so the budget was cut on some of your programmes? that's partly what the surplus is? yeah, the budget was cut, absolutely. we saved costs. and also, we couldn't make a lot of things. covid restrictions meant we couldn't make shows. bearing in mind that there were people involved in the productions of those shows that got cut, that have been at home and haven't had government support because they fall in between the stalls, because they're freelance, in that context, was it right of you to accept a pay rise? well, we made as many shows as we possibly could. so we did things like... you know, we made bake—off in a bubble. we, like, sent everyone from bake—off away for six weeks to sequester in a hotel to make the show. so we made as many things

as we could and we also made lots and lots of shows in little companies and small companies in the nations and regions. so our choice was about putting as much money back into the sector as we could... but the optics of you having more money personally, when other people have really been struggling in the production sector, it's not a good look. i think you're right to flag that it was really, really difficult for freelancers and, you know, a focus for us was also about how we contribute money to the freelancers�* charity and what we could do to help them. and ourfocus has been on, how can we get as many of them back to work as possible and up the programming budget, which is what we announced yesterday about putting more money into it. ok, i'm going to bring in chris curtis, editor of broadcast. this is the fifth time that there has been a government consultation into channel 4. both labour and tory governments have had a go at this. why do you think they think now might be the right time to sell? well, the market does change. i mean, that's true. it was 2015, '16... in fact, the last attempt, there wasn't actually

a formal consultation, but it dragged on for, goodness, 18 months or more. that was five years ago, six years ago. the market has changed. the speed of the streaming revolution has only accelerated. but it's also the case that the british psbs — and channel 4 at the forefront — they're changing with the market, so it's not as though everything surrounding these organisations is all up in the air and they're preserved in aspic. so i think there's two things. there's the fact that the market has changed, there's what the dcms would say is their concerns about the long—term sustainability of channel 4 — and that's something that i suspect alex would have a view on — and then there's the fact that, you know, either ideologically, the government may hold the view that having a second state—owned broadcaster is not a good thing or an unnecessary distraction, and the fact that, conceivably, privatising

an asset like channel 4 would be a boost to the treasury, though in the grand scheme of the level of national debt at the moment, the proceeds you might make from buying channel 4 is something of a drop in the ocean. so that would be their rationale, i suspect. but also, i mean, the state owns it. is there a sense that the price might be less in the future — you know, sell it now because it might be worth less? do you think that's the calculation? well, conceivably. i mean, the value of channel 4 is an interesting question. i suspect the value of channel 4, in terms of what you could get on the open market from a trade bidder, let's say, would be directly linked to the constraints that came with any purchase. the government's made it clear that they expect, in one form or another, to sort of preserve c4's psb remit, but it is the case that the stronger the remit, the less attractive c4 would be to a commercial buyer, because they would be obliged

to many of the things that channel 4 does at the moment which, you know, a for—profit organisation wouldn't do. alex mentioned a recent series about adult literacy. i can't imagine that would be top of the list of a pure play commercial operator, and channel 4 news and the dispatches strand and all kinds of different types of programming. let's say all that was protected. i mean, the government haven't announced anything like this yet, they're onlyjust beginning the consultation, but let's say, in conclusion, they were saying, "we will ring—fence all those things, we'll make sure we still do dispatches and unreported world and those sorts of things." do you think there would be any buyers for channel 4 as it exists now, and if so, who? look, i think it's inconceivable that if the government auctions off slot number four in british television that companies wouldn't take a look. i mean, one of the things that isn't clear... previously, it would've been unthinkable that one of the big

existing british players would buy channel 4 for sort of monopolistic reasons. now, who knows? maybe the speed of the global giants' progress would mean that that's something that would be more palatable to regulators and there would definitely be lots of companies interested in having a look. but i think it's clear, and i think dcms would accept, that there's almost like a sliding scale, in that the stronger the remit, the more preserved the channel 4 remit is, the less money you're likely to realise by selling it. and that's a judgment call for them to make. the other thing that i think is worth saying is that if you're a commercial operator and you want to buy channel 4, you are likely, i suspect, to want to produce your own programming. if you look at what itv has done in the last ten years, it's gone from being pure play advertising to advertising and production — very successfully, very clever strategy.

channel 4's whole ethos is based around the fact that it doesn't produce its own programmes, precisely so that it can support the uk production sector... and as alex said, that's actually helped it get a surplus this year, when production was suffering. yes, but, i mean, it's also been a huge contributor... british television production is a uk plc success story over the last sort of 20 years. that's undeniable. channel 4 has played a significant role in that. and if a new owner of channel 4, i don't know, made 50% of its programmes in—house and owned that ip, then that would be money that is lost to indigenous british producers that we've seen over that period. so all of these factors need to be considered when making decisions about the future model and future ownership of channel 4. shall we talk to some programme makers? derek mclean, you run

a production company, bandicoot, which is part of the argonon group. what do you make of all this, by the way, the channel 4 scenario, first of all? i think it's a really challenging one. i mean, i know alex's hands are tied, but i can't help but, from a personal level, wonder whether the government do this slightly as a punishment beating for channel 4 because they sort of ideologically don't fit with their ethos. it's something that i hope does not come to pass. i think the point that chris made and alex made, very clearly, is the uk economy benefits hugely from channel 4's current status, because we, as independent production companies in the uk, produce the content for them. and that money flows directly into uk companies and the uk exchequer as a result. if it's purchased by an overseas company — a foreign—held company — the likelihood is that a large part of that may go if they do move content in—house,

and i think that from the government's point of view, selling uk plc, i think they really need to answer that question about how they would protect us as small indies in that scenario. and as chris mentioned earlier, you as an indie get to keep more of your ip when you sell to channel 4, the valuable intellectual property. that's not necessarily a benefit to the taxpayer, is it? i mean, wouldn't it be better for channel 4 to own that, and then the taxpayer owns it? well, it depends on which network you're with with channel 4. i mean, obviously the deals are structured differently. i think there's an argument for that, and i think we would happily look at that. the terms of trade changed some time ago to give us the freedom to do that, which makes the uk such a brilliant place to make programming, so i think it would be bad news to go back and reverse that. i think the other point that she made is, you know, channel 4 is a brilliant... it's almost like a kite mark around the world, in terms of the quality. you know, if we're pitching a show that channel 4 have produced or piloted,

that means something elsewhere, and i think that goes to the high benchmark of the quality of shows that are made by channel 4. and very few networks around the world have that. and, danielle, i'd imagine you're a fan of the status quo as well. you're making a lot of shows for channel 4, or have done in the past. you do pretty well out of the current situation. the thing for us as the indies is that channel 4 is often the place that gives you your first break. they are the place that often back new talent, ideas that are quirky or left field but then become mainstream. and, yes, of course, every business needs to move with the times and keep up with things as they change, but the thing that is most vital is being certain of the effect that such a sale might have, and affecting far more than simply what the viewer sees immediately on—screen, but a whole commercial ecology around channel 4. well, one of the things that i've been watching on the screen recently — over on itv, admittedly —

is the masked dancer. derek, it's kind of like a mad fever dream that keeps repeating on me, but it wasn't your idea. it's something you found in korea, is that right, and then pitched it to the uk broadcasters? tell us the story. the masked singer is a korean format, yeah. so it was a show that originated in korea around 2005... 2015, rather. was a huge success in korea — you know, a massive smash hit. the format itself has actually done an unusualjourney. we pride ourselves in the uk is being format generators and format exporters. the masked singer has actually travelled around the world the opposite way. it started in korea. thailand did an amazing version with unbelievably opulent costumes, which is what caught our eye, and then, actually, fox in the us commissioned it before it came to the uk. so, unusually, it travelled the world in the opposite direction.

the masked dancer is a step forward from that... i don't want to call it a spin off show — i think that would undermine it — but it's the familiar masked brand but done differently, and we're really excited that we had the opportunity to try something different under that guise. but you did go taking the masked singer around, didn't you, for a while? and nobody wanted it, really, until it was a hit in the states. is that fair? it's amazing what a massive success on fox in the usa can do to everyone�*s appetite... the challenging thing, i think, for people... when we pitched the show, we were going in, saying, "we've got this show, it's really different. it's celebrities, but they're singing, but they're in disguise," and the first thing people would say is, "oh, not another talent show, not another singing show. we've had so many of those. we really don't need any more." and we were at pains to say, "it's not a talent show. it's a guessing game. you have to understand it's a completely different concept, because it doesn't matter whether they're any good at singing or not. they're not competing each other in that way. it's for the audience to guess who they are." and at first, i think

people really struggled to capture that, and then, eventually, they caught on. and that's where, suddenly, the change came. and so a guessing game is now part of an entertainment genre, whereas perhaps people just saw shiny—floor talent shows. and, danielle — i'm sorry to mention this in front of derek, but your series life & rhymes recently won a bafta up against the masked singer in the entertainment category. congratulations! as i mentioned earlier, that's a poetry show. it's quite bittersweet. i mean, actually, quite a lot of the poetry is a real punch in the guts emotionally. i wouldn't necessarily think of it as an entertainment show. do you think the genre's really broadening out now? i think you get lots of bittersweet moments in some of those competition shows, where people lose some contest or they talk about the trials that they've gone through to get to those points, so an emotional arc is absolutely right at the centre of those shiny—floor shows as well.

i think that entertainment, moving with the times, can't limit itself to simply being two slots on saturday night in a studio, much as derek's show has completely united the nation and there's absolutely a place for that. but where factual entertainment is actually really providing a lot of entertainment for the viewer, entertainment ideas come from everywhere. and, really, where they come from is something joyful and passionate that somebody believes in and wants to perform, and that's where... you talk about it as poetry, which sounds so oxbridge. it's spoken word. it is the songs on derek's show but without music. so there's nothing rarefied. it's real people's experience and it'sjoyful and beautiful. chris curtis from broadcast, what do you think those two shows tell us about where entertainment is at the moment? i mean, the guessing game thing — that does seem to be the kind of next big frontier of saturday night telly now?

yes. often when there's a hit, commissioners rush to l see what else might be in a similar space. - and there's one or two other guessing gamesl on air at the moment. look, they're fun. there's definitely a turn of... there's not much cruelty any more| in the entertainment space. we don't really want to see, l after the year everyone's just had, people having their dreams dashed on a saturday night, - and i think that's something that is bringing the genre i together at the moment. and i think, gradually, i the sector is being a little bit riskier, a little bit. bolder, at trying a few new things out, not least because i kind of think. there's an acceptance now that j the numbers that the really big beasts do — in the shape i of strictly — or used to do — in the shape of x factor, | let's say — it kind of feels that's gone a little bit and no one really thinks that there'sj going to be a new entertainment format that does _

10 million viewers. maybe that's - a little defeatist. but given that sort of context, i think broadcasters, - commissioners, are happier to try a few things out, - they might not have quite the vast budgets of some| of those old shows, and see what they can achieve - with newer, quirkier ideas. so this is a little move in the right direction, i i would suggest. and maybe a little bit on your territory, alex mahon from channel 4. chris just called both these shows bold — and they kind of are. one�*s on sky arts and... it is a poetry show, i know you want to call it spoken word, danielle. and, derek, what you're doing is very bold for a saturday night show as well, in terms of visuals and surprise. are those shows you'd like on channel 4, alex? they are both brilliant shows stub i would love to have either of them. they are absolutely brilliant. does it mean you _ absolutely brilliant. does it mean you have _ absolutely brilliant. does it mean you have to - absolutely brilliant. does it mean you have to be - absolutely brilliant. does it| mean you have to be bolder absolutely brilliant. does it i mean you have to be bolder if itv... ., , mean you have to be bolder if itv. .. that is not a bad thing. havin: itv. .. that is not a bad thing. having competition _ itv. .. that is not a bad thing. having competition is - itv. .. that is not a bad thing. having competition is not - itv. .. that is not a bad thing. having competition is not a i itv. .. that is not a bad thing. i having competition is not a bad thing. having lots of shows for the uk public is not a bad thing for the but i'm saying is, we're here about doing some

the witches in economic acculturation, social one, we are about young people, we are often about the underserved invoices that are unheard. nothing that we do about sometimes challenging, sometimes challenging, sometimes bringing different perspectives, car lot about diversity of thought, that is an important thing for britain today. an important thing for britain toda . ~ ., , today. well, we have served that to the _ today. well, we have served that to the area _ today. well, we have served that to the area four - today. well, we have served l that to the area four audience today, but that is all the time we have. thank you to all my guests. media show will be back next week. thanks so much for listening. hello there. a lot of dry weather in the forecast for the weekend and there will be some spells of sunshine, but it is not going to be completely dry. during saturday, we will see some showers, some of which will be heavy, and southern areas are likely to have some

more precision rain through sunday. so let's consider the detail. saturday morning start with a lot of my weather buddy fairmont of clouds. scattering of showers especially for east anglia, the midlands and parts of wales. some of those showers could be heavy. more cloud for the far northeast of england, the far northeast of england, the onslaught of rain with that, some sunny spells from northern scotland and northern ireland. top temperatures between 14 and 22. as we had to saturday evening, some of those showers will continue for a time in the south, some more persistent rain pushing up through the channel islands, and that will work its way in across southern counties of england for sunday for some the potential some of that rain could get up to southwest and the midlands. further north and should be largely dry with some spas of sunshine, and pleasantly warm for many.

this is bbc news — very good to have you with us. i'm rich preston. our top stories: two, seven, zero... 22.5 years for derek chauvin, over the killing of george floyd. accountability at last, say mr floyd's supporters and family. no—one is above the law are known beneath it. a police officer is not above the law and george floyd is certainly not be needed. 159 people are still unaccounted for, after the collapse of an apartment block, near miami beach. here in the uk, prime minister, borisjohnson accepts an apology from his health secretary, matt hancock, after pictures emerge of him kissing and embracing